Posted by shobob on 6/29/2013 4:32:00 PM (view original): George Ford is a pitcher with vel, gb/fb and p1 all at 85+. Look at those stunning numbers that he's putting up in AAA

While I do not have a side in the forum vs rangerup, and certainly do not have the resume of some, Ford's issues appear to be more Control related -- if it were 78+, I think his results would be much different

I don't recall mr. up mentioning anything about control being an important rating to look at. Seems to me that he insists that having a dominant "big three" makes up for other shortcomings. And as for if this guy had a 78 + control, he'd be on my ML squad as a SUB

True, and I was not offering a defense of ranger premise. I added my own qualifier that control can be the equalizer to bad splits (or less than desired split ratings.

Definately I mean we can go to extremes like a line like this:
99 40 40 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

even with those splits of 40 that pitcher will be the best pitcher that most owners will ever have. though 40 might be too low to come back from even with these extreme numbers. But no question if those 40s were 50s he would be the most dominant pitcher of all time. But I have never seen a pitcher with more then 2 99s, so the splits naturally have to be at least 50 something for any pitcher to have any chance of being effective.

Posted by rangerup on 6/18/2013 12:21:00 PM (view original):Splits are the most important, but the Big Three can make up for that, providing you have the big three. Velocity, groundball and P1. If they are at or above 90, splits can become a non factor by and large.

Aside from all the negative smack talk, what I said originally in this post looks to have held. My point was that, as I said, splits are the most important ( I did not refute that) but the Big Three can make up for it. Pitchers have been put up here to corroborate that. I am sure there are still those out there that will continue to try and split hairs, but that is just a personal, internet anonymity grudge or something. If you want to win, and win economically so you can spread your payroll around and build a TEAM that wins, these are some of the things you pay attention to, and look for, and obtain in a value added way.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/30/2013 5:25:00 PM (view original):If his "big 3" was control, P1, and P2, I wouldn't have an argument. You can have splits in the 50s/60s, great control and great pitches, and he could be a great pitcher.

I think I'm most hung up on the velocity part. I largely see that rating as next to meaningless.

VEL matters if you have a subpar fielding infield because more balls in play + ****** range/glove fielders = runs.

Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson probably could've pitched several innings without any fielders behind them simply because they would strike out the side. OTOH, Yankee pitchers for the last 15 years have suffered from horrible SS range and probably given up more hits and runs than they would have if they had, say, a REAL shortstop playing the position.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/30/2013 5:25:00 PM (view original):If his "big 3" was control, P1, and P2, I wouldn't have an argument. You can have splits in the 50s/60s, great control and great pitches, and he could be a great pitcher.

I think I'm most hung up on the velocity part. I largely see that rating as next to meaningless.

VEL matters if you have a subpar fielding infield because more balls in play + ****** range/glove fielders = runs.

Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson probably could've pitched several innings without any fielders behind them simply because they would strike out the side. OTOH, Yankee pitchers for the last 15 years have suffered from horrible SS range and probably given up more hits and runs than they would have if they had, say, a REAL shortstop playing the position.

Agree that it means more if your defense is poor. But still much less meaningful than each pitch #, control, splits, GB rating.

Had two lousy years in the midst of a softcore tank job. Pretty decent otherwise.

Ah yes, Juan Olivares. I didn't draft him, but he was in Low A when I came to JR and I brought him up through the ranks to the bigs. I always marvelled at his productiveness with low splits, but he does have a monster 1p and a very good 2p.

SOFT core tank job? That was one of the hardest core XXX-rated tank jobs I've ever seen in HBD.

I left behind a team that won 100, 102, 98 and 98 games the previous four seasons. The *** clown that followed me immediately dismantled it and won 56 and 61 games the next two seasons before he bolted--or was kicked out.

The team I left behind was aging in spots but still a contender. Olivares is only one of many good players from that team still playing productive ball after being traded away by the super-tanker that followed me.

Posted by billpitt on 6/27/2013 9:17:00 AM (view original):I'm not one to normally make negative comments on another owner, but rangerup came into our league (Lets Play Two), took that 99 win team, traded its younger players for older players with long term contracts, made the team more of a win at all costs now version, and then bailed after he won the WS with the excuse he was tired of playing HBD. As I said to him then, and I'll say now, he's the poster boy for the type of owner we wish to never have again.

Anyone who values the idea of "Dynasty" in Hardball Dynasty should ignore any advice rangerup has to offer.

Plus 4 or however many.

I am the owner of the franchise rangerup was "one and done" on in Let's Play Two.

He had nothing to do with building that team. Litigator01, the previous owner for around eight seasons, built the team.

rangerup did contribute something--I have a 40 year old mopup pitcher that I'm paying 18m to. He'll probably be in AAA next season for the last year of his contract. Thanks, rangerup.

As Billpitt said, rangerup's only real contribution to this team was make it older. Yes, it's still a very good team this year, thanks to Litigator.

But starting next season or the one after that, there is going to be a helluva rebuilding job.